

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The legal case of congreve v secretary of state for the home office, decided in 2016. The case revolves around the appellant's challenge to the home office's demand for additional television licence fees, which had already been paid before the fee increase. The court ruled that the minister's attempt to revoke validly issued licences and demand extra fees was an abuse of discretionary power and an unlawful demand, as it went against the policy of the legislation and the bill of rights 1688. The document also includes references to related cases and statutes.
What you will learn
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 2
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Au gu st 22, 2016
References: [1976] 1 QB 629, [1976] 1 All ER 697, [1977] 2 WLR 291 Coram: Geoffrey Lane LJ, Lord Denning MR Ratio: The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was £12 although the minister had already announced that it would later be increased to £18. The Home Office wrote to those who had purchased their licence before the new charge came into effect demanding the payment of the extra £6 failing which their licence would be revoked. Held: It was an abuse of the Minister’s undoubted discretionary power to revoke TV licences for him to seek to revoke a validly issued licence as a means of levying money which Parliament had given the executive no power to demand. The courts will rule invalidate the exercise of a discretion which contains no express limitations in such a way as to run counter to the policy of the legislation by which it was conferred. Geoffrey Lane LJ: ‘the proposed revocation.. is illegal for two reasons. First, it is coupled with an illegal demand which taints the revocation and makes that illegal too. Secondly, or possibly putting the same matter in a different way, it is an improper exercise of a discretionary power to use a threat to exercise that power as a means of extracting money which Parliament has given the executive no mandate to demand: see Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd (1921) 37 TLR 884.’ Lord Denning MR: ‘There is another reason for holding that the demands for £6 to be unlawful. They were made contrary to the Bill of Rights. They were an attempt to levy money for use of the Crown without the authority of Parliament: and that is quite enough to damn them.’ and ‘If the licence is to be revoked – and his money forfeited – the Minister would have to give good reasons to justify it. Of course, if the licensee had done anything wrong – if he had given a cheque for £12 which was dishonoured, or if he had broken the conditions of the licence – the Minister could revoke it. But when the licensee has done nothing wrong at all, I do not think the Minister can lawfully revoke the licence, at any rate, not without offering him his money back, and not even then except for good cause. If he should revoke it without giving reasons, or for no good reason, the courts can set aside his revocation and restore the licence. It would be a misuse of the power conferred on him by Parliament: and these courts have the authority – and, I would add, the duty – to correct a misuse of power by a Minister or his department, no matter how much he may resent it or warn us of the consequences if we do.’ Statutes: Bill of Rights 1688 4 This case is cited by:
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22-Aug- Ref: 197886
http://swarb.co.uk/congreve-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-office-ca-1976/